Creation Science Rebuttals

Institute for Creation Research

Impact #361: The Truth about Ice Cores

Ice cores
drilled from the polar regions provide us with excellent records of the history
of the climate on earth. They are also very useful in dating the ice caps, as
you can count the layers, similar to counting tree rings. These layers are
deposited annually, and are relatively simple to read. Although not an exact
science, it does provide a good estimate of the age of the ice caps. Naturally,
since these ages are said to be over 400,000 years old, they disprove the
young earth creation science theory that the world is only 6,000 years old. Because of this they
have been the target of multiple attacks by young earth creationism
proponents.

Discussion

Mr. Oard
critiques the ice cores known as GRIP and GISP2. There is nothing spectacular
about these cores. They are standard cores which are very easy to read and
understand. Of course, if you a young earth creationist, they present quite a
problem. As usual, the YEC (young earth creationist) comes up with an
alternative explanation for these ice layers. He claims that the layers during
the glaciation period (the time immediately following the Flood, during which
YECs claim all the evidences for Ice Ages occurred)
there was much more precipitation, yielding these thicker layers of snow.

This is an
interesting claim, mainly because of the fact that he presents no evidence to
support this claim! He doesn’t give layer thickness data from the cores in
support of his argument. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that the
young-earth model is viable. This is unusual for a young earth claim…normally
they give evidence (albeit wrongly interpreted).

The only other
apparent fault of the ice cores mentioned by Mr. Oard is the counting of the
dust layers. He claims that they came up a number that did not correspond to
the deep sea ocean sediment time scale. Therefore, they recounted the layers
using a finer instrument, and added 25,000 layers, which is more in line with
the corresponding deep sea ocean sediment time scale. He claims they were
assuming an age for the ice, and recalculated it in order to achieve this older
age. In effect, they kept going until their assumption was proved.

He is absolutely
correct, but this is actually a good thing. For instance, if you know the
distance from New York to Los Angeles, and then drove it, and found that your
numbers were off by 200 miles, then you examine your route and try again.
Scientists have a valid date based on ocean sediments, and this can be used to
calibrate other methods of dating. If they are off, then you must refine your
measurements to get more accurate results. This is not, as Mr. Oard implies,
bending the data until you get the desired result. This is comparing data to
make sure your measurements are accurate. It’s no different than calibrating a
weight scale. You know that a pound weight maintained at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology in Washington, DC is exactly
a pound. If you have a block used for calibration based on the standard in
Washington, and your scale is off by half an ounce, you know you must
recalibrate your scale. The same is true of the ice core…it was merely
recalibrated to obtain valid results. This is not baseless assumptions by
biased people…it is real science, being performed by real scientists.

Conclusion

As shown through
science, the ice cores prove valid for giving an estimate of their age based on
the layers of ice. Of special interest to this argument is the last two
sentences of Mr. Oard, which states “In other words, the
uniformitarianscientists date the ice sheets
to hundreds of thousands of years because they believe the ice sheets are old to
begin with. They have "proved" only what they have assumed!” Unfortunately for
Mr. Oard, he is the one guilty of trying to prove what he assumed. All of
young earth creation science is built on the assumption that the earth is 6,000 years
old. In effect, Mr. Oard is only trying to prove this assumption. He is guilty
of the very thing that he accuses real scientists of doing. This goes back to
the argument that young earth scientists are not true scientists, because they
don’t live by the definition of a scientist.

If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision
for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to
what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the
inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while
still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.

Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we
have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in
this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If
you are a young earth creationism believer,
click here.